TMR’s special on swatting leftists begins in earnest with Part One: Read and Prepare.

For obvious reasons (to non-leftists), reading and preparing are arguably the most important things you can do when it comes to debating – and you need to get started on both of them long before you go leftie hunting.

Reading without preparing is similar to having ‘strategy without tactics’ (i.e. the slowest route to victory) – a principle often attributed to Sun Tzu. Preparing without reading on the other hand would make you a leftist.

It feels a bit silly recommending obvious things like ‘reading’. However, the simple fact is that people simply do not read stuff, let alone the stuff they’re going to mouth-off to other people on. Given that we’re supposed to be experiencing the ‘age of information‘, it amazes me how little interest people actually have in helping themselves to some of it. I guess some things will never change – which creates a big opportunity when it comes to the next self-righteous leftist that comes preaching your way.

By reading and preparing, I don’t mean cram a few articles just before a debate like a university student does to pass an exam. I also don’t mean read The Sydney Morning Herald every day (and nothing else) and then call yourself ‘informed’. If all you do is watch either or both Sunrise and the 6.00 nightly news, then please stop reading here. This article is not for you. I think Millionaire Hotseat might be on. Off you go.

When it comes to reading, I mean:

stop scrolling through your social media ‘news’ feeds and informing yourself about what people (who you don’t even make the time to see anymore) ate for dinner last night;

read, re-read, watch videos, listen to radio shows and podcasts and any other forms of media you can sensibly learn from – and immerse yourself in a wide variety of opinions (including some phenomenally moronic ones) on whatever it is you are going to have a debate on; and

check and re-check the opinions by looking up basic and non-negotiable facts on the topic.

From there, you will need to refine your thoughts, form your own opinion and challenge it wherever you can. Know the absolute facts and take a logical position on the inevitable grey areas.

So, to summarise:

Reading – absorb as much relevant information from other people and sources as you can.

Preparing – organise and refine your thoughts on that material in a sensible fashion (this is also known as ‘thinking’). For extra brownie points, try committing your thoughts to writing and put them out there for others to read.

As a non-leftist, if you’re not intimately familiar with the material in question, then there’s a good chance that you’re going to have a bad time. This is because if two uninformed people are shooting from the hip, the one signalling the most apparent virtue will win by default – and all uninformed observers will be much the poorer for the experience. You must avoid this at all costs. It is a leftist’s natural advantage and it can only be countered with facts and logic, delivered in an entertaining and persuasive manner.

As for Doctor Peterson (video re-produced below), he has clearly spent his whole career researching and understanding the psychological differences between men and women and the reasons why there is an aggregate pay gap between them. He also knows that the reasons for the gap are numerous and have little to do with ‘the patriarchy’ or simply gender by itself [TMR: otherwise the gap would be a lot larger among other things]. Examples include:

choice of job – spoiler alert: men and women prefer different types of jobs and some jobs pay more than others (it’s ok, I’ll wait for you to recover…);

choice of lifestyle – I’ve heard that women have children every now and then and some of the crazier ones like to stay home and look after them;

agreeableness… the list goes on.

As for Newman, she isn’t able to move beyond the raw, aggregate figure of the 9% ‘pay gap’. To her, this means something and everything of itself. So while Doctor Peterson is armed with advanced weapons (e.g. at 6:00 ‘if you’re a social scientist worth your salt, you never do a uni-variate analysis’), Newman has little more than sticks to throw back in return.

NB: I have noticed some people claiming that the study giving rise to the 9% pay gap figure was a proper multivariate analysis. This is horsesh… I mean, completely untrue. To be fair though, it was more advanced on the topic than Cathy Newman.

As for the debate between Newman and Doctor Peterson, the whole affair quickly becomes farcical by the time Peterson makes the obvious point that equality should only ever be in opportunity, not outcome (see 12:30 on) – to which Newman pitifully retorts with the following diet-piffle:

At 15:43 on:

Doctor Peterson: I said that equal outcomes aren’t desirable. That’s what I said. It’s a bad social call. I didn’t say that women shouldn’t be striving for the top or anything like that, because I don’t believe that for a second.

Newman: Striving for the top – but you’re going to put all those hurdles in their way, as has been in their way for centuries! And that’s fine, you’re saying that’s fine!

[TMR: Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you… Oxford’s ‘first’ in English!!!]

Doctor Peterson: Exactly! Good for you!

Newman: So that’s ok? Battling is good? This is all about the fight?’

Doctor Peterson: (Smiling) It’s inevitable!

Newman: But you talk about men and fighting. Let me just put another thing to you…

Doctor Peterson: Why wouldn’t you have to battle for a high quality position?’

(Sound of crickets chirping)

At 17:30 on:

Newman: Well here’s a radical idea, why don’t the bosses adopt – the male bosses shall we say – adopt some female traits, so that women don’t have to have to fight and get their sharp elbows out for the pay rises, it’s just accepted that if they’re doing the same job they get the same pay?

Doctor Peterson: I would say partly because it’s not so easy to determine what constitutes the same job.